- (1.) This revision has been filed against the appellate order of the Additional Collector, Bharatpur dated 3.2.58 upholding the original order of the Tehsildar Bharatpur dated 4.11.57 in a case relating to mutation proceedings whereby the mutation of the deceased Sher Singh was sanctioned in the name of his daughter Shrimati Maya Devi.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. Some of the salient facts which have an important bearing upon the case may be set out as below: - - (1) Sher Singh died on 18 9 56 leaving behind no male issue or a widow but only a daughter, Shrimati Maya Devi. (2) The Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 which received the assent of the President on 23.5.56 was enforced on 1.7.56. Sec. 137 of the Act lays down that succession of an estate shall be governed by the law, usage or practice of the local area in which such estate lies notwithstanding the provision of repeal contained in sec. 263 of the Act. Sec. 51 of the Bharatpur State Revenue Code, 1905 lays down that the inheritance of biswedari rights including rights in the Shamlat area shall be governed by the provisions contained in the Wajib -ul -arj of each village. A certified copy of the Wajib -ul -arj of this village exists on record and parts 1 and 2 of the same provide that the male lineal descendants of the deceased and in their absence the widow of the deceased shall inherit. The daughter of the deceased is not recognised as a heir in these provisions. (3) The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 received assent on 17th June, 1956 and became the law of the land on that date. Sec. 8 of this Act lays down that the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve first upon the heirs specified in Glass 1 of the Schedule. Sons and daughters are included in this class.
(3.) The point which arises for determination in the case is as to whether the daughter of the deceased should be allowed to inherit the biswedari rights of the deceased Sher Singh or not. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that sec. 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 lays down that nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any law for the time being in force providing for the prevention of fragmention of holding or for the fixation of ceilings or for the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of such holdings. The argument is that by virtue of this exception the question of succession in the present case should also be deemed to be beyond the scope of this Act. This argument is clearly untenable. What is exempted from the Act is the law providing for the prevention of fragmentation of holdings or fixation of ceilings or the devolution of tenancy rights in such holdings only. What is involved in the present case is not the devolution of any tenancy right but the question of succession of a Biswedari estate.;